Collection of cases (NS)

*Το utilize the training material, choose a discipline from the Training Tab and then read the “Instructions” for Trainers.

Many cases included in this material are used in the ROSiE training materials – handouts and their use are described in instructions for trainers; however, if trainers want to use additional cases or address a topic that is not directly addressed in the training materials, they might consult this collection of cases. Also, this material can be used independently from the training materials for any course addressing ethical issues in open science and citizen science. Additionally, for six of the cases there are animations available on the ROSiE Knowledge Hub.

After each case, there are questions for discussion, as well as supplementary readings that may be used by a trainer or assigned as required or optional readings for trainees. The case collection includes an index (p. 5) where cases are grouped according to field of science, stage of research and topic.

There are many approaches how to discuss a case study in ethics (see, for example, the case deliberation methods compiled by the team of the EnTIRE project[1]. Some approaches are suggested in ROSiE instructions for trainers and handouts. We encourage trainers to choose an approach tailored to the needs of a specific group of trainees. Trainers are encouraged to discuss cases both according to the field of science and interdisciplinary. In groups including trainees from different fields of science, it might be beneficial to form small groups according to disciplinary lines. The small groups representing particular fields of science might be asked to discuss a case from their point of view. In a plenary discussion following the group work, the different perspectives may be compared and analysed. It might help, first, to see the differences and then reach a consensus. Another methodological approach for interdisciplinary discussions is “pairing the cases”. For example, in situations where there is a group consisting of medical scientists and engineers, it might be useful to introduce two cases, one medical case and one engineering case, and ask trainees to discuss these cases in mixed groups. It might also be beneficial to involve several trainers with different backgrounds to foster a dialogue between different fields of science.